27.10.2014 Views

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The Foundations of Social <strong>Research</strong> 51<br />

women or to children; some animals required permission from an elder to eat;<br />

some animals should not be eaten by members of this or that clan; and so on.<br />

Aunger has data, then on 145 animals. When he analyzes those data and looks<br />

at which animals have similar patterns of avoidance, the animals are the units<br />

of analysis. But he also knows someth<strong>in</strong>g about each of his 424 <strong>in</strong>formants.<br />

When he looks at differences <strong>in</strong> food taboos across people—like patterns of<br />

food taboos <strong>in</strong> the four ethnic groups—then people are the units of analysis.<br />

A Rule about Units of Analysis<br />

Remember this rule: No matter what you are study<strong>in</strong>g, always collect data<br />

on the lowest level unit of analysis possible.<br />

Collect data about <strong>in</strong>dividuals, for example, rather than about households.<br />

If you are <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> issues of production and consumption (th<strong>in</strong>gs that<br />

make sense at the household level), you can always package your data about<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong>to data about households dur<strong>in</strong>g analysis. But if you want to<br />

exam<strong>in</strong>e the association between female <strong>in</strong>come and child spac<strong>in</strong>g and you<br />

collect <strong>in</strong>come data on households <strong>in</strong> the first place, then you are locked out.<br />

You can always aggregate data collected on <strong>in</strong>dividuals, but you can never<br />

disaggregate data collected on groups.<br />

This rule applies whether you’re study<strong>in</strong>g people or countries. If you are<br />

study<strong>in</strong>g relations among trad<strong>in</strong>g blocs <strong>in</strong> major world regions, then collect<br />

trade data on countries and pairs of countries, not on regions of the world.<br />

Sometimes, though, the smallest unit of analysis is a collective, like a<br />

household or a region. For example, each person <strong>in</strong> a household consumes a<br />

certa<strong>in</strong> number of grams of prote<strong>in</strong> per week. But you can’t just add up what<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals consume and get the number of grams of prote<strong>in</strong> that comes <strong>in</strong>to<br />

a household. Some grams are lost to waste, some to pets, some to fertilizer,<br />

some to fuel. After you add up all the grams, you get a s<strong>in</strong>gle number for the<br />

household. If you are test<strong>in</strong>g whether this number predicts the number of days<br />

per year that people <strong>in</strong> the household are sick, then the household is your unit<br />

of analysis.<br />

The Ecological Fallacy<br />

Once you select your unit of analysis, remember it as you go through data<br />

analysis, or you’re likely to commit the dreaded ‘‘ecological fallacy.’’ This<br />

fallacy (also known as the Nosnibor effect, after Rob<strong>in</strong>son [1950], who<br />

described it) comes from draw<strong>in</strong>g conclusions about the wrong units of analysis—mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />

generalizations about people, for example, from data about<br />

groups or places. For example, <strong>in</strong> 1930, 11% of foreign-born people <strong>in</strong> the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!